But Neil Fowler wanted to make a comment that I consider deserves an audience because, aside from making a factual point, it raises an important question of journalistic ethics. So here is Neil's comment, which I have also added it to the original posting...

It's a shame that comments aren't allowed on the Baby P story (I understand why) because, to be fair to The Sun, it wasn't the only villain in the Baby P story when it came to blaming social workers.

First, my declaration of interest - my wife is a social work manager - so I have been thoroughly inducted into the story.

I suspect many other media titles made the same error - after all, it's easy subbing to get it down to "seen 60 times by social workers" rather than "seen 60 times by doctors, nurses, police officers, health visitors and social workers", as was actually the case.

The examples I know about concern the BBC. First, its PM programme made the same mistake as The Sun in December 2008 - claiming that Baby P had been seen 60 times by social workers. I emailed shortly afterwards asking if it could correct the day after. I received a response three months later from PM's deputy editor saying (a) it wasn't much of a mistake and (b) that it was too late to correct!

Second, a year later Today made the same error in its 7am headlines when the story had resurfaced. I emailed straightaway (I am, if nothing, a dutiful husband...) and, to be fair, the duty editor responded straightaway and it was corrected for the 8am headlines.

I think this shows that the error was a widespread misunderstanding, not just confined to The Sun. The Sun may have used it for campaigning purposes - but I would argue that the BBC's error were just as serious, if not more so, as it tends to have a much greater trust rating – ie, if it's reported by the BBC it must be right - and this is how fiction rapidly becomes fact.

It's a good example of the dangers of "nearly right" having major repercussions. As an industry, the media as a whole (print and broadcast) has been happy to use "nearly right" as a yardstick for accuracy.

We've all been guilty, I'm afraid, and sadly the Baby P case is one small but very significant example.